Jump to content
LinkItToNuclearWar

Need Help With Arguing Condo Bad

Recommended Posts

I'm just beginning to get it to harder stuff like theory and whatnot and need help with conditionality

 

1) Should I argue it in the first place? Do judges hate that kind of thing? 

2) If so, do I need evidence or can I just explain how it's unfair and we should win, etc.

 

And just anything you could tell me about the topic would be helpful! :)

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You probably should not read carded evidence for condo, since it's a theory violation. 

Condo is definetely arguable. Some judges feel differently about it, but in general, it should be winnable in front of judges.

Just explain the voters and why condo is bad (time skew, argumentive irresponsibility)...

I suck at condo and i've only gone for it when I knew I was gonna lose everything else, so someone else could probably help you more. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You probably should not read carded evidence for condo, since it's a theory violation. 

Condo is definetely arguable. Some judges feel differently about it, but in general, it should be winnable in front of judges.

Just explain the voters and why condo is bad (time skew, argumentive irresponsibility)...

I suck at condo and i've only gone for it when I knew I was gonna lose everything else, so someone else could probably help you more. 

I'm not sure why this got downvoted, I think this is pretty accurate.

 

There's variety when it comes to how judges feel about condo. Some judges are incredibly persuaded by pointing out performative contradictions, others view conditionality as a natural part of debate. In general, most judges are okay with conditional advocacies, and are also open to voting on conditionality bad. Obviously, as with any theory argument, it's best to get the judge's preference ahead of time, but throwing a condo shell into your 2AC is usually a pretty safe move. So to answer your first question, no, judges don't hate that kind of thing.

 

On your second question, ZidaoWang is right-- cards are almost never needed for theory arguments. You'll want to read an analytical shell structured like this:

 

Interpretation-- Conditionality is a voting issue

 

(The violation is implied in this case, because either you've asked them the status in cross x or it's obvious by the 1NC that the counterplans/kritiks are condo)

 

reject the team:

Fairness-- blah blah blah strat skew time skew 

Education-- blah blah blah clash bad advocates argumentative irresponsibility

 

 

Thats really all you need. Shouldn't take more than 30 seconds. So yes, you're right that you just need to be able to explain why it's bad for debate.

 

Here is a good example of someone going for condo during a camp tournament a while back. It gives a good picture of how to impact out conditionality arguments. You will always do better in theory debates by relying less on your blocks and providing analysis specific to the round, like this person is doing.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: I feel like I should mention that people generally don't go for condo in the 2AR unless at least one of the following things is true--

 

1) The block either drops it or severely mishandles it

2) The in round abuse is flagrant

3) The judge really hates condo

Edited by Nonegfiat
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

people generally don't go for condo in the 2AR unless at least one of the following things is true--

 

1) The block either drops it or severely mishandles it

2) The in round abuse is flagrant

3) The judge really hates condo

 

4) when you're getting brutally crushed (@edina rw)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why this got downvoted, I think this is pretty accurate.

 

There's variety when it comes to how judges feel about condo. Some judges are incredibly persuaded by pointing out performative contradictions, others view conditionality as a natural part of debate. In general, most judges are okay with conditional advocacies, and are also open to voting on conditionality bad. Obviously, as with any theory argument, it's best to get the judge's preference ahead of time, but throwing a condo shell into your 2AC is usually a pretty safe move. So to answer your first question, no, judges don't hate that kind of thing.

 

On your second question, ZidaoWang is right-- cards are almost never needed for theory arguments. You'll want to read an analytical shell structured like this:

 

Thats really all you need. Shouldn't take more than 30 seconds. So yes, you're right that you just need to be able to explain why it's bad for debate.

 

Here is a good example of someone going for condo during a camp tournament a while back. It gives a good picture of how to impact out conditionality arguments. You will always do better in theory debates by relying less on your blocks and providing analysis specific to the round, like this person is doing.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: I feel like I should mention that people generally don't go for condo in the 2AR unless at least one of the following things is true--

 

1) The block either drops it or severely mishandles it

2) The in round abuse is flagrant

3) The judge really hates condo

What round was this?  I'm curious to see the rfd now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its a dumb arg.

Sometimes people read args on other flows that conflict with their kritiks, so you have to beat them back on opposite fronts. Other times people read 4 conditional counterplans. That's never fun for the aff.

Edited by Nonegfiat
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conditionality is a time-skew. That being said, it is dropped sometimes. Knowing how to go for it is a good skill, but in my opinion, its a dumb arg.

 

Conditionality is commonly used just to get the neg to kick conditional advocacies, but I wouldn't say that it's a time skew because it does brings up some good points. It can be gone for if it isn't dropped, and it can be read well and legitimately won on. It's good to have debates about issues like condo to keep the debate space fair and educational, because nobody wants to answer ten cps and that probably isn't an educational and legitimate strategy anyway. It's an important argument, but it is often underutilized and most condo debates are pretty bad. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some 2AC/1AR stuff if anyone doesn't have it already. I'm not saying it's particularly good, and there's lots more you can find online (Google "debate theory file" or "conditionality bad") but maybe useful if you want to see how you might run it. You'd put the 2AC block in the 2AC, and then in the 1AR you'd read the 1AR block then answer each Negative block argument. 

 

2AC Condo Bad

Interpretation: the Negative does not get conditional advocacies.

A.    1NC Strategy - conditionality necessitates cheating counter-plans - prevents thinking about argument interaction.

B.     Research - we make hyper-specific, Aff-based research a requirement and punish superficial strategies.

C.    Clash - no-risk options ruin depth by causing late-breaking debates about the least-covered strategy.

Team rejection is the only real deterrent.

 

2AC—Conditional Critique

Independently, conditional critiques are a reason to vote Negative for ethics - if they can criticize our world-view, they should be able to unconditionally defend their own – debaters should be held accountable for any ethical or subjectivity-related positions we advocate in the debate space.

 

1AR Condo Bad

Extend the interpretation: no Negative conditional advocacies.

A. 1NC Strategy - they throw everything at a wall and see what sticks - the 1NC should think about argument interaction - and, careful 1NC choice crowds out cheating CPs because the Negative actually has to defend them.

B. Research - nobody cares about Aff-specific research, background reading, or detailed strategies when they can run the cap K, the XO CP, and the politics DA in every 1NC and go for whichever 2AC block was worse.

C. Clash - risky options are key to invested debates - they re-start every debate by kicking 80% of it in the block - ruins depth and clash.

Reject the team, not the argument - endorsing our model of debate requires the ballot as a competitive deterrent to the Negative.

 

1AR Conditional Critique

And, conditional critiques are a voting issue for ethics—if they can criticize the underlying assumptions of the Affirmative, they shouldn’t be able to abandon that criticism—it’s key to accountability in the debate space.

Edited by TheSnowball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why this got downvoted, I think this is pretty accurate.

 

There's variety when it comes to how judges feel about condo. Some judges are incredibly persuaded by pointing out performative contradictions, others view conditionality as a natural part of debate. In general, most judges are okay with conditional advocacies, and are also open to voting on conditionality bad. Obviously, as with any theory argument, it's best to get the judge's preference ahead of time, but throwing a condo shell into your 2AC is usually a pretty safe move. So to answer your first question, no, judges don't hate that kind of thing.

 

On your second question, ZidaoWang is right-- cards are almost never needed for theory arguments. You'll want to read an analytical shell structured like this:

 

 

Thats really all you need. Shouldn't take more than 30 seconds. So yes, you're right that you just need to be able to explain why it's bad for debate.

 

Here is a good example of someone going for condo during a camp tournament a while back. It gives a good picture of how to impact out conditionality arguments. You will always do better in theory debates by relying less on your blocks and providing analysis specific to the round, like this person is doing.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXFFQ69g180

 

 

 

EDIT: I feel like I should mention that people generally don't go for condo in the 2AR unless at least one of the following things is true--

 

1) The block either drops it or severely mishandles it

2) The in round abuse is flagrant

3) The judge really hates condo

I really don’t think that it’s a bad argument at all and can only be gone for when mishandled. I’m the 1A but my partner has gone for condo bad in her 2AR multiple times, beating people like Isidore Newman AL and taking a ballot from Lindale DW in Octos of UH when Condo was covered fairly well in both rounds. It’s a very good argument that with the right judges and the right implementation, can be a downright killer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×